Systems and Methods for Identifying a Subrogation Opportunity for a Potential Subrogation Claim

ABSTRACT

Methods and apparatus are disclosed for determining a subrogation score for a potential subrogation claim. The systems and methods described herein provide a user, such as a claims adjuster, with the tools to retrieve and communicate information related to one or more products likely to have caused a property loss. The systems and methods may further determine a subrogation score indicative of subrogation opportunity for a potential subrogation claim relative to the one or more products. The subrogation score may be based on information in at least one database. The subrogation score may be provided to the user such as an insurance carrier. The user may then decide whether to proceed with further investigative analyses (e.g., component testing of the one or more products) pursuant to a potential subrogation claim. Additional systems and methods disclosed herein facilitate the insurance carrier&#39;s submission of the one or more products for component testing.

CROSS REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS AND CLAIM TO PRIORITY

This application is a continuation of, and claims priority to andbenefit under 35 U.S.C. §120, the prior-filed and co-pending U.S.non-provisional application Ser. No. 14/040,705 filed on Sep. 29, 2013,entitled “Systems and Methods for Identifying a Subrogation Opportunityfor a Potential Subrogation Claim,” which claims the benefit of U.S.provisional Application No. 61/884,105 filed on Sep. 29, 2013, thedisclosures of which are incorporated by reference herein in itsentirety.

STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH

None.

REFERENCE TO SEQUENTIAL LISTING, ETC.

None.

BACKGROUND

Present embodiments are related to a system and method for determiningsubrogation opportunity for a potential subrogation claim relative toone or more products.

In a typical insurance claim scenario, insured party reports a loss totheir insurance carrier. The insurance carrier assigns an adjuster toassess the loss and estimate the cost of restoration, including repair,and/or replacement. In many instances, the adjuster assesses the lossand determines the parameters for restoration of the loss. Due to theemergency nature of the loss, the adjuster is generally focused onpreparing an estimate for restoration costs, and may not have readilyaccessible tools to determine subrogation opportunity for a potentialsubrogation claim relative to one or more products likely to have causedthe loss. For example, an insured party may have property loss due towater in the basement and report this loss to their insurance carrier.The insurance carrier's adjuster may assess the loss to the insuredproperty and estimate the cost of restoration. In some instances, theinsurance carrier may provide the insured party with funds for theestimated restoration costs. The insured party, in turn, may have therepair, replacement, and/or restoration work done independently, orcontract a restoration company and/or contractor approved by theinsurance carrier to perform the work. In order to efficiently validateand process claims, insurance companies may often provide restorationand/or reparation funds to the insured party and may lose a potentialsubrogation opportunity.

Further, the underlying cause of the water in the basement may have beena malfunctioning sump pump, dishwasher, water heater, and/or washingmachine. A number of factors such as a manufacturer's defect, improperinstallation, and/or improper maintenance, could have caused one or moreof these products to malfunction. As a result, the insurance carrier mayhave paid for losses that may have been caused by the actions of thirdparties. In such situations, the insurance carrier would like toidentify the underlying cause of the property loss, and seekreimbursement from the third party by filing a subrogation claim. Thismay lead to a considerable reduction of costs to the insurance carrier.

The determination as to whether an insurance claim may be subject to asubrogation claim is based on a careful analysis of one or more factors.For example, once the insurance adjuster prepares an estimate, lossrestoration may proceed swiftly, whereby potentially significantevidence may be lost. Capturing and preserving evidence from theaffected area in a timely manner is therefore an important factor. Otherfactors may include maintaining an updated database of product-relatedinformation (e.g., Statute of Repose database for a state in which theloss occurred, a Consumer Product Safety database, a historicaldatabase, and a new trends database). Therefore, it is desirable to havea system and method for readily determining a subrogation scoreindicative of subrogation opportunity for a potential subrogation claimrelative to one or more products. The systems and methods disclosedherein facilitate the insurance adjuster's ability to identify datarelated to product identifiers of the products (e.g., serial number,product barcode, UPC code, make, model and year of the sump pump,dishwasher, water heater, and/or washing machine), and provide theproduct identifiers to one or more servers. The one or more servers maycompare the received product identifiers with product data to determineif the products have been subject to recalls, have known defects, havebeen subject to component testing, and/or if similar products have beena subject of past subrogation claims. Based at least in part on suchfactors, a subrogation score may be determined. In some implementationsa subrogation report may be generated based on the subrogation score.The insurance carrier, and/or the insurance adjuster, may then readilymake a determination whether to proceed with a subrogation project. Themethods and systems disclosed herein facilitate the submission of asubrogation project.

SUMMARY

The specification describes systems and methods for determining asubrogation score for a potential subrogation claim. As discussed, thesystems and methods described herein provide a user, such as aninsurance claims adjuster, with the tools to retrieve and communicateinformation related to one or more products likely to have caused aproperty loss. The systems and methods may further determine asubrogation score indicative of subrogation opportunity for a potentialsubrogation claim relative to the one or more products. The subrogationscore may be based on information in at least one database. Thesubrogation score may be provided to the user such as an insurancecarrier. The user may then decide whether to proceed with furtherinvestigative analyses (e.g., component testing of the one or moreproducts) pursuant to a potential subrogation claim. Additional systemsand methods disclosed herein facilitate the insurance carrier'ssubmission of the one or more products for component testing.

In some implementations, a method is described that includes: receiving,via an application on a computing device of a user, one or more productidentifiers, the one or more product identifiers identifying one or moreproducts likely to have contributed to a loss; searching at least onedatabase for product data related to the one or more productidentifiers, the at least one database including one or more of aStatute of Repose database, a Consumer Product Safety database, ahistorical database and a new trends database; retrieving, via one ormore servers, the product data from the at least one database;determining, based on the retrieved product data, a subrogation scorefor each of the one or more products, the subrogation score indicativeof subrogation opportunity for a potential subrogation claim relative tothe one or more products; and providing the subrogation score to theuser.

This method and other implementations of the technology disclosed caneach optionally include one or more of the following features.

In some implementations the product identifiers may include at least oneproduct attribute for each of said one or more products. In someimplementations the at least one product attribute may include one ormore of a make, model, year of manufacture, year of purchase, age,photograph, video recording, audio recording, and product descriptionrelated to said one or more products.

The method may further comprise identifying a claim identifier, theclaim identifier identifying the potential subrogation claim related tothe loss. In some implementations the claim identifier may include oneor more of an insured party identifier, the insured party identifieridentifying a beneficiary of the insurance claim, a date identifier, thedate identifier identifying the date the loss occurred, and ageographical identifier, the geographical identifier identifying aphysical location where the loss occurred.

The method may further comprise providing, via the application on thecomputing device of the user, a selectable option to submit the one ormore products for component testing. In some implementations the methodmay further comprise receiving, via the application on the computingdevice of the user, an affirmative user selection of the selectableoption to submit the one or more products for component testing. Themethod may further comprise responding to the affirmative user selectionof the selectable option to submit by prompting the user to enter one ormore claim identifiers. In some implementations the method may furthercomprise generating a confirmation number for the one or more productsfor component testing. In some implementations the method may furthercomprise responding to the affirmative user selection by providingshipping information to the user to ship the one or more products forthe component testing. In some implementations the method may furthercomprise responding to the affirmative user selection by providingevidence collection recommendations related to the one or more productsfor the component testing. The method may further comprise receiving,via the application on the computing device of the user, an affirmativeuser selection of the selectable option to not submit the one or moreproducts for component testing.

In some implementations determining the subrogation score may includegenerating a subrogation report for each of the one or more productsbased on the subrogation score.

The method may further comprise associating the subrogation score witheach of the one or more product identifiers in a subrogation database.

In some implementations the at least one database may include a newtrends database, and the method may further comprise comparing thesubrogation score to a threshold. The method may further comprisedetermining, based on the comparison of subrogation score to thethreshold, a new trend factor, the new trend factor indicative of recentoccurrences of the one or more products in the new trends database. Themethod may further comprise adjusting the subrogation score based on thenew trend factor.

In some implementations the at least one database may include a Statuteof Repose database, and the method may further comprise identifying astate for applying the Statute of Repose. The method may furthercomprise identifying a statutory time limit for the identified state inthe Statute of Repose database, and adjusting the subrogation scorebased on comparison of the statutory time limit and an elapsed time frompurchase date of the one or more products.

In some implementations the retrieved product data may include one ormore of product recall information, manufacturing defect information,and a product warning.

In some implementations the one or more products may include one or moreof roofing material, an appliance, electrical components, and plumbingcomponents.

In some implementations the one or more product identifiers may includeone or more of a product barcode, serial number, and UPC code.

In some implementations, a method, implemented on a mobile device, isdescribed that includes: identifying, via the user-interface on themobile application, one or more product identifiers, the one or moreproduct identifiers identifying one or more products likely to havecontributed to a loss; providing, via one or more servers, the one ormore product identifiers to a central server; prompting the centralserver to search at least one database for product data related to theone or more products, the at least one database including one or more ofa Statute of Repose database, a Consumer Product Safety database, ahistorical database and a new trends database; receiving, from thecentral server, a subrogation score based on the one or more productsidentifiers, the subrogation score indicative of subrogation opportunityfor a potential subrogation claim relative to the one or more products;and displaying the subrogation score via the mobile application.

Other implementations may include a non-transitory computer readablestorage medium storing computer instructions executable by a processorto perform the various methods described herein. Another implementationmay include implementing the disclosed method and apparatus on anapplication running on a computing device (e.g., a mobile application ona mobile device, a downloadable application on a desktop computer, andso forth). Yet another implementation may include a network comprising acommunication environment in optional combination with one or more thirdparty databases, wherein the communication environment comprisescommunication infrastructure capable of data exchange from and betweenone or more servers and a plurality of client devices in the field. Theone or more servers may include a central command and/or or distributedinformation resources.

In general, one aspect of the technology described herein can beembodied in methods that include retrieving on-site data pertaining toproduct identifiers of one or more products likely to have contributedto a loss. This may be accomplished via a computer application runningon a computing device of a user. This data is then uploaded to thesystem and correlated to and synthesized with available metrics from atleast one database to determine a subrogation score. The retrieval ofdata is achieved within a short window of opportunity so as not to loseany evidence.

The details of one or more embodiments of the technology disclosed inthis specification are set forth in the accompanying drawings and thedescription below. Additional features, aspects, and advantages of thetechnology disclosed will become apparent from the description, thedrawings and the claims.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

FIG. 1 illustrates a block diagram of an example environment fordetermining a subrogation score for a subrogation opportunity.

FIGS. 2A-2B illustrate example methods of receiving a productidentifier.

FIG. 3A is a table illustrating example methods of determining a basescore.

FIG. 3B is a table illustrating example methods of determining a newtrend factor.

FIG. 3C is a table illustrating example methods of determining a recallfactor.

FIG. 3D is a table illustrating example methods of determining a statutefactor.

FIG. 3E is a table illustrating example methods of determining asubrogation score.

FIG. 3F is a table illustrating example methods of providing asubrogation score.

FIGS. 4A-4E illustrate example graphical user interfaces for providing asubrogation score.

FIG. 5 illustrates a flow diagram of an example process for determininga subrogation score for one or more products implemented on one or moreservers.

FIG. 6 illustrates a flow diagram of an example process for determininga subrogation score for one or more products implemented on a mobiledevice.

FIG. 7 illustrates a flow diagram of an example process for submitting asubrogation project.

FIG. 8 illustrates a block diagram of an example computer system.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

Present embodiments are related to systems and methods for determining asubrogation score for one or more products. The subrogation score may beindicative of subrogation opportunity for a potential subrogation claimrelative to the one or more products. In the event of a property loss,an insurance carrier responds to a filed claim by sending an adjuster toassess the property loss. In most instances, the adjuster assesses theloss and prepares an estimate for restoration costs. The insuranceprovider may compensate the insured party for the estimated amount. Theinsured party may take steps toward restoration of the property. As aresult, the adjuster's focus is typically on determining if the loss isan insured loss, and preparing an estimate for the restoration costs.The adjuster, being out in the field, may identify one or more productslikely to have contributed to the loss. However, the adjuster may notalways have the tools to determine if one or more products thatcontributed to the loss has the potential of being the subject of asubrogation claim. This may occur, for instance, when the adjuster doesnot have access to information related to product recalls, manufacturingdefects, and so forth. For example, the adjuster may respond to a claimrelated to property loss resulting from water in a basement. Theadjuster may arrive at the physical location and assess the propertyloss in the basement and prepare an estimate for restoration costs. Theadjuster may additionally identify one or more products (e.g., a sumppump, an air conditioning unit, water heating unit, supply lines,plumbing components, and so forth) that are likely to have contributedto the loss. However, without access to a database, the adjuster may notbe able to determine subrogation opportunity for a subrogation claimrelative to the one or more products. For example, one or more of theproducts may have been subject to a product recall. As another example,one or more of the products may have certain manufacturing defectsand/or persistent malfunctions that have been reported. Also, forexample, one or more of the products may have been used and/or installedin a negligent manner. As another example, one or more of the productsmay have been the subject of component testing in the past that isindicative of a product defect. The insurance adjuster may not have thetools to identify such potential alternative causes of the loss.Instead, based on the estimate for restoration costs prepared by theinsurance adjuster, the insurance carrier may pay the insured party forrestoration of the property. The insured party may proceed withrestoration efforts, thereby eliminating valuable evidence needed for asubrogation claim. Accordingly, a subrogation opportunity for apotential subrogation claim relative to the one or more products may belost. Consequently, insurance companies may pay for losses for whichthird parties, such as product manufacturers and/or distributors, may beresponsible.

The determination as to whether a product may be a subject of apotential subrogation claim is based on a careful analysis of one ormore factors. Capturing and preserving evidence related to the propertyloss in a timely manner is one such factor. For example, if a waterheater malfunctions during winter, the insured person is likely toexpect a quick response from the insurance carrier in terms of areplacement heater, and/or repair time. In such circumstances, theinsurance carrier and/or the owner may opt to restore the water heatingcapability at the earliest opportunity. The water heater may thereforeget removed, repaired, and/or replaced, and evidence as to the cause ofthe property loss may be eliminated. As a result, the insurance carriermay lose subrogation opportunity for a potential subrogation claimrelative to the one or more products.

It is therefore desirable to have a system and method for readilydetermining a subrogation score for a potential subrogation claim andprovide the subrogation score to an insurance carrier. An insuranceadjuster may assess the loss, retrieve data related to productidentifiers of one or more products likely to have caused the loss, andprovide such data to the system. The received data may be compared toexisting data in at least one database to determine a subrogation score.In some implementations a subrogation report may be generated andprovided to the insurance carrier and/or the adjuster with a selectableoption to submit the one or more products for further component testing.

In general, one aspect of the technology described herein can beembodied in methods that include retrieving and updating, on-site datapertaining to product identifiers. This may be accomplished via acomputer application running on a user's mobile device. This data isthen uploaded to the system and correlated to and synthesized withavailable metrics from a product database to determine subrogationopportunity for a potential subrogation claim relative to the one ormore products. The retrieval and update of data is achieved within ashort window of opportunity so as not to lose any evidence.

These and other particular embodiments will be described in more detailwith the help of the figures.

FIG. 1 illustrates a block diagram of an example environment fordetermining a subrogation score for a subrogation opportunity. Theprocess environment 100 includes a subrogation opportunity processingsystem 110, and one or more client devices 160. The process environment100 also includes a network 120 that allows for communication betweenvarious components of the process environment 100. The exampleenvironment 100 further includes a subrogation database 130, asubrogation scoring system 140, and optionally, a subrogation reportgenerator 145. In some implementations, the subrogation report generator145 may be included in the subrogation scoring system 140. In someimplementations one or more components, or parts thereof, of the processenvironment 100 may reside on the client device.

During operation, the subrogation opportunity processing system 110 mayreceive one or more products identifiers via an application on acomputing device of a user. The one or more product identifiers mayinclude a serial number, a product barcode, a UPC number, a file nameassociated with a product, and so forth. For example, a water heater maybe uniquely identified by a serial number, a model number, and/or auniversal product code (“UPC”). In some implementations a given productof the one or more products may be uniquely identified by a productbarcode. In such instances the product identifier may be data obtainedfrom the product barcode. A product identifier may also be a file nameuniquely associated with a data file. For example, the file may be aJPEG file that includes a digital photograph of impact on a roof. Thefile may be associated with a unique product identifier such as“IDXYZ1234_roof_side.jpg”, where “XYZ1234” may be a claim number. Insome implementations the digital photograph may be the productidentifier for the roof. In some implementation a product identifier maybe uniquely associated with a product (e.g., product barcode, serialnumber, UPC number).

In some implementations the product identifier may include at least oneproduct attribute for each of said one or more products. The productattribute may be a description of the product, or the product attributemay be related to one or more components of the product that may havecontributed to the loss. The at least one product attribute may includeone or more of a year of manufacture, year of purchase, age, photograph,video, and audio recording. In some implementations the productattribute may not be uniquely associated with a product. For example,several appliances may share the same year of manufacture. Also, theheating element of a water heater is a product attribute that is notunique to a water heater. Generally speaking, the one or more productsmay include any product that may be identified as a potential cause ofthe loss. Such products may include, but are not limited to, roofingmaterial, an appliance, electrical components, plumbing components, andso forth.

In some implementations a claim identifier may be identified. The claimidentifier may identify a potential subrogation claim related to a loss.For example, the claim identifier may be a claim number associated withthe potential subrogation claim. As another example, the claimidentifier may be the insurance adjuster's company information. Also,for example, the claim identifier may be a combination of the claimnumber associated with the potential subrogation claim and the insuranceidentification number for the insured party.

In some implementations the claim identifier may include additional datarelated to the potential subrogation claim. In some implementations theclaim identifier may include an insured party identifier, where theinsured party identifier may identify an insured party that has sufferedthe loss. For example, the insured party may be an insured person thatfiled an insurance claim for the loss, and the insured party identifiermay be the person's insurance policy number. In some implementations theclaim identifier may include a date identifier, the date identifieridentifying the date the loss occurred. For example, the date identifiermay be in a format such as <12_(—)19_(—)2012> indicating that the lossoccurred on December 19, 2012.

In some implementations the claim identifier may include a geographicalidentifier, the geographical identifier identifying a physical locationwhere the loss occurred. The geographical identifier may begeolocational data, including data from a GPS, or a Wi-Fi network. Thegeographical identifier may also be the physical address of the locationwhere the loss occurred.

The one or more product identifiers may be identified by the user. Forexample, an adjuster may be at a physical location where a loss may haveoccurred. In some implementations a mobile application may be installedon a mobile device of the adjuster. The adjuster may access the mobileapplication and enter data related to the one or more productsidentifiers. For example, the adjuster may upload the one or moreproduct identifiers either automatically (e.g., scanning a productbarcode with an optical scanner, taking an image) or manually (e.g.,entering data, such as a product serial number, via a virtual keyboard)through an appropriate user interface on the application on thecomputing device.

The entry of data related to the product identifiers, and/or the claimidentifier, could be done in one of many embodiments, including a menuand icon driven approach to enable the user to provide the productidentifiers, and/or claim identifier, including estimating the extentand type of property loss, and uploading photos, videos, audio, text,and other documents. In some implementations, the menu and icon drivenapproach may also be enhanced to provide menus and icons of a genericnature, and also those customized for a particular type of product. Forexample, the menus and icons for an air conditioning unit may beconfigured differently than the menus and icons for a water heater. Insome implementations, the menus and icons may be presented in aninteractive manner wherein a particular input into a field data valueprompts a further enquiry from the system. For example, the user mayenter the model and serial number for a water heater into the system.Based on data in the subrogation database 130, the system may prompt theuser to enter additional information such as the year of make. In someimplementations, the user may be allowed to create data fields to enterspecific kinds of data. For example, the user may inspect property lossand identify one or more product identifiers for the product, and createdata fields to enter data related to one or more product identifiers. Insuch implementations, the systems may generate a field for data entrybased on a previously entered data stored in the subrogation database130. For example, the user may be prompted to “enter the product barcode”, or to “enter model number”. The user may respond, for example, byscanning the product bar code and/or entering it manually.

The network 120 may include components with memory for storage of dataand software applications, a processor for accessing data and executingapplications, and components that facilitate communication over thenetwork 120 in the process environment 100. In some implementations,when the one or more products identifiers are received by thesubrogation opportunity processing system 110, the one or more productsidentifiers may be stored and/or indexed in the subrogation database forfuture retrieval. Such storing and/or indexing may be based on one ormore of the claim identifier, and/or product identifier.

In some implementations, upon receipt of the one or more productidentifiers, the subrogation opportunity processing system 110 mayextract the product identifiers, and/or claim identifier for the one ormore products, and initiate a search of at least one database forproduct data related to the one or more products. In someimplementations the network 120 may communicate with the subrogationopportunity processing system 110 and prompt the user to inputadditional information to facilitate the search.

The subrogation database 130 stores product data for one or moreproducts. The at least one database includes historical data indicativeof results of past component testing. Product data may include productdata retrieved from one or more external product databases 150 such asdatabases maintained by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (“CPSC”),Consumer Federation of America (“CFA”), and National Highway SafetyAdministration (“NHSA”). For example, the CPSC website providesinformation related to product recalls. A “Recall Summary” may providethe name of the product, the nature of the defect and/or hazard, areport on incidents and/or injuries, recommended remedies, and whereapplicable, the names of the seller, distributor, manufacturer,importer, and so forth. The subrogation opportunity processing system110 may retrieve this information from the CPSC website and store it inthe subrogation database 130. In some implementations the subrogationopportunity processing system 110 may periodically scan websites such asthe CPSC website for information related to products.

In some implementations the subrogation database 130 may store productdata for one or more products based on the results of past componenttesting. For example, a water heater may have been the subject of a pastinquiry. Engineers may have performed an origin and cause analysis forthe water heater to determine what caused the water heater tomalfunction and/or which components of the water heater failed. Theresults of such analysis, including evidentiary facts, may be stored inthe subrogation database 130. In some implementations the subrogationdatabase 130 may additionally include details of current and potentialcomponent testing.

The subrogation database 130 may be appropriately indexed to enableefficient search features. In some implementations the indexing may bebased on the type of product, the manufacturer, the distributor, themake, model and/or year, the type of defects, the components that mayhave failed, and so forth. In some implementations the indexing may bebased on the price of the product, and/or the replacement cost for theproduct. Indexing may also be based on geographic regions, insuranceproviders, and/or the type of consumer. Additional and/or alternativemethods of indexing may be utilized such as the source of theinformation related to the product identifiers and/or product data. Thesubrogation database 130 may additionally and/or alternatively include arecord of data regarding field data input, data field created by a user,etc. The record may further include time stamp data and sessionidentification data that facilitate indexing of documents and othermultimedia content.

The product identifier and the product data are then processed by thesubrogation opportunity processing system 110 as disclosed herein.Clients and a variety of end users interact with the subrogationopportunity processing system 110 through the client devices 160. Theclient devices 160 include memory for storage of data and softwareapplications, a processor for accessing data and executing applications,and components that facilitate communication over the network 120 in theprocess environment 100. The client devices 160 execute applications,such as application 165, that allow clients to interact with the visualdisplays and other information provided by the subrogation opportunityprocessing system 110.

As the volume of product data stored in the subrogation database 130increases, the subrogation opportunity processing system 110 is able toidentify failure trends, newly emergent trends, and better determinesubrogation potential. Populating the subrogation database 130 withresults of component testing is also useful in maintaining an updateddatabase about products and specific factors that may increase thesubrogation opportunity for a potential subrogation claim relative tothe product.

Referring to FIG. 2A, an example method of receiving a productidentifier is illustrated. A graphical user interface 200 on a mobileapplication is illustrated. The graphical user interface 200 illustratedhere allows the user to input the product barcode 220 by capturing adigital image of the barcode via a camera. The user may be presentedwith a prompt 210, such as “Tap to focus”. The user may respond byfocusing the camera over the product barcode 220 and by tapping thescreen on the mobile device. The focus indicator 230 indicates if theimage of the barcode is in focus. The focus indicator 230 may be red toindicate that the image is out of focus, and may turn green when theimage is in focus. Once the image of the product barcode 220 iscaptured, it may be transmitted to the subrogation opportunityprocessing system 110 for further processing. In some implementations,one or more databases may be searched for product data related to thetransmitted barcode.

Referring to FIG. 2B, another example method of receiving a productidentifier is illustrated. A graphical user interface 200 on a mobileapplication is illustrated. The graphical user interface 200 illustratedhere allows the user to input the product barcode 240 by scanning thebarcode with an optical scanner, and/or via manual entry of the productbarcode 240. The optical scanner may be an external device operationallyconnected to the mobile device. In some implementations, the mobileapplication may be configured to include optical scanning capabilities.In some implementations, the mobile application may be configured tocommunicate with an independent optical scanning mobile application toreceive the digital record of the barcode 240. In some implementationsthe user may be presented with a prompt 260, such as “Scan”. The usermay respond by scanning the product barcode 240 using an opticalscanner. A scan indicator 250 may indicate if the optical scanner isable to capture the product barcode 240. Once the product barcode 240 iscaptured, it may be transmitted to the subrogation opportunityprocessing system 110 for further processing. In some implementations,one or more databases may be searched for product data related to thetransmitted barcode.

The graphical user interface 200 illustrated here may allow the user toinput the product barcode 240 via manual entry of the product barcode240. In some implementations the user may be presented with a prompt280, such as “Manual Entry”. The user may respond by entering the number280 associated with the product barcode 240. For example, the user mayinput the number <658072753072> associated with the product barcode 240by using the virtual keyboard 270. In some implementations the user mayuse an audio interface to speak the barcode and the mobile applicationmay store it in digital audio form. In some implementations such digitalaudio may be transcribed to obtain the product barcode.

In some implementations the product data may be retrieved from the atleast one database. For example, the subrogation database 130 may besearched for product data related to the make and/or model of anappliance. The subrogation database 130 may have stored product dataindicating that the appliance was subject to a manufacturer's recall.Such product data may be retrieved from the subrogation database 130 bythe subrogation opportunity processing system 110. As another example,an image of a faulty product may be submitted to the subrogationdatabase 130 and the subrogation opportunity processing system 110 maysearch the subrogation database 130 for product data that matches thesubmitted image. Such matching product data may be retrieved from thesubrogation database 130 by the subrogation opportunity processingsystem 110.

In some implementations a subrogation score may be determined for eachof said one or more products. The subrogation score may be indicative ofsubrogation opportunity for a potential subrogation claim relative tosaid one or more products. In some implementations the subrogation scoremay be determined by the subrogation scoring system 140. In someimplementations the subrogation scoring system 140 may include asubrogation report generator 145. The subrogation score may be based onproduct data retrieved from at least one database, including a Statuteof Repose database, a Consumer Product Safety database, a historicaldatabase and a new trends database.

In some implementations the subrogation database 130 may be configuredto receive and process product data from one or more external productdatabases 150 via network 120. Such product data may be directly orindirectly transferred, processed, and stored in the subrogationdatabase 130. The subrogation opportunity processing system 110 mayreceive, process and/or synthesize the product data from the at leastone database and provide the results of the synthesis to the subrogationscoring system 140. As product identifiers are entered by the user, thisdata may be compared to product data in the subrogation database 130 bythe subrogation opportunity processing system 110 and provided to thesubrogation scoring system 140. The subrogation scoring system 140 maydetermine a subrogation score and provide it to the subrogationopportunity processing system 110. The subrogation opportunityprocessing system 110 may communicate the subrogation score to theclient via the network 120. In some implementations the subrogationopportunity processing system 110 may include one or more clientinterfaces tailored to different users. Such interfaces may include thelogic to tailor the subrogation report based on a particular user.

For example, the product identifiers, such as the make, model, and/oryear, may indicate that the product is generally prone to manufacturingdefects. Accordingly a subrogation score more indicative of thesubrogation opportunity for a potential subrogation claim may beassociated with the given product. As another example, the product datamay indicate that a given product has been recalled by the manufacturer.Accordingly a subrogation score more indicative of the subrogationopportunity for a potential subrogation claim may be associated with thegiven product. On the other hand, product data may indicate that a givenproduct has not been subject to any recalls by the manufacturer.Accordingly a subrogation score less indicative of the subrogationopportunity for a potential subrogation claim may be associated with thegiven product.

Also, for example, the subrogation score may be based on an analysis ofpast and present component testing. In some implementations thesubrogation opportunity processing system 110 may identify trends inproduct defects based on component testing data and optionally storeinformation related to such trends in a new trends database. Forexample, component testing may indicate that water heaters from aparticular manufacturer include a component that fails within the firstfive years of use, but rarely within the first two years of use. Suchdata may not be available from an external product database 150. Thesubrogation opportunity processing system 110 may provide suchinformation to the subrogation scoring system 140 which may accordinglyassign a subrogation score more indicative of the subrogationopportunity for a potential subrogation claim with a water heater thathas been in use for four years than with a water heater that is in itsfirst year of use. As another example, the frequency of product datarelated to a sump pump may not be statistically significant over aperiod of say, 15 years. However, an observable spike may be seen whenthe frequency of product data is limited to the last six months. Suchdata may be stored in the new trends database. In some implementationsthe new trends database may be included in the subrogation database 130.

In some implementations the subrogation scoring system 140 may determinethe subrogation score based on an analysis of past subrogation claims. Arecord of past subrogation claims may be maintained, for example, in ahistorical database. The historical database may, in someimplementations, be included in the subrogation database 130. Forexample, the subrogation database 130 may include associations betweenproduct identifiers and past subrogation claims. In some implementationsthe associations may be additionally refined based on the outcome of asubrogation claim. For example, the subrogation database 130 may includedata indicative of whether a subrogation claim was successful, and/orthe claim amount from a past subrogation claim. Such data may beretrieved from one or more external databases 150. Accordingly asubrogation score more indicative of the subrogation opportunity for apotential subrogation claim may be associated with a given product thatis associated with one or more successful past subrogation claims. Onthe other hand, a subrogation score less indicative of the subrogationopportunity for a potential subrogation claim may be associated with agiven product that is associated with one or more unsuccessful pastsubrogation claims. The number of successes and/or failures may be anadditional criterion in the determination of the subrogation score. Forexample, a record of a successful past subrogation opportunity for apotential subrogation claim may add to the subrogation score for a givenproduct, whereas a record of an unsuccessful past subrogationopportunity for a potential subrogation claim may diminish thesubrogation score for the given product. Likewise, a subrogation scoremore indicative of the subrogation opportunity for a potentialsubrogation claim may be associated with a given product that isassociated with a record of one or more successful past subrogationopportunities with a subrogation claim amount that is more than athreshold value. Also, a subrogation score less indicative of thesubrogation opportunity for a potential subrogation claim may beassociated with a given product that is associated with a record of oneor more unsuccessful past subrogation opportunities with a subrogationclaim amount that is less than the threshold value.

In some implementations a median claim amount may be determined and astandard deviation from the median claim amount may be utilized todetermine the subrogation score. For example, a larger positivedeviation from the median claim amount may be more indicative of asubrogation opportunity for a potential subrogation claim whereas alarger negative deviation from the median claim amount may be lessindicative of a subrogation opportunity for a potential subrogationclaim. Accordingly, a subrogation score more indicative of thesubrogation opportunity for a potential subrogation claim may beassociated with a given product that is associated with a largerpositive deviation from the median claim amount. On the other hand, asubrogation score less indicative of the subrogation opportunity for apotential subrogation claim may be associated with a given product thatis associated with a larger negative deviation from the median claimamount.

In some implementations the subrogation scoring system 140 may determinethe subrogation score based on a comparison of the replacement and/orrepair costs to the insurance carrier and the expected subrogationopportunity for a potential subrogation claim. For example, thesubrogation database 130 may store information related to therestoration costs for a given product. The subrogation database 130 mayadditionally store data indicative of component testing costs,arbitration costs, product shipping costs (e.g., to ship the product toa component testing laboratory) related to the one or more products in apotential subrogation claim. In some implementations the subrogationopportunity processing system 110 may determine an estimated cost forpursuing a potential subrogation claim. The subrogation opportunityprocessing system 110 may compare the replacement and/or repair costs tothe insurance carrier and the expected costs for pursuing a potentialsubrogation claim. For example, the subrogation opportunity processingsystem 110 may determine the difference between the restoration costs tothe insurance carrier and the expected costs for pursuing a potentialsubrogation claim. A larger positive difference may be more indicativeof a subrogation opportunity for a potential subrogation claim whereas alarger negative difference may be less indicative of a subrogationopportunity for a potential subrogation claim. Such information may thenbe provided to the subrogation scoring system 140, which may determinethat a subrogation score more indicative of the subrogation opportunityfor a potential subrogation claim may be associated with a given productthat is associated with a larger positive difference. On the other hand,a subrogation score less indicative of the subrogation opportunity for apotential subrogation claim may be associated with a given product thatis associated with a larger negative difference.

In some implementations the retrieved product data may be provided tothe subrogation report generator 145 for further processing. Forexample, the product identifiers may be compared to the retrievedproduct data by the subrogation opportunity processing system 110. Aftercomparing the product identifiers to the product data, the subrogationopportunity processing system 110 may forward the results of thecomparison to the subrogation report generator 145. A subrogation reportdetails the results of the origin and cause analysis for the loss basedon failure analysis. For example, a water heater may have malfunctioned.Analysis may reveal that the malfunctioning was caused by the failure oftwo components. The analysis may further reveal that the failure of thefirst component was due to a manufacturing defect. This may be based, atleast in part, on data received from the CPSC website. It may beadditionally determined that the second component has been subjected tofrequent component testing in the past. This may be based, at least inpart, on data in the historical database. The subrogation report mayprovide such information to the insurance carrier. The insurance carriermay then make a determination as to whether a subrogation claim relatedto the water heater may be proper. In some implementations thesubrogation report may be tailored based on one or more factors such asthe product, the insurance provider, the type of potential subrogationclaim, the type of defect, and so forth.

The subrogation scoring system 140 may determine a subrogation score andprovide it to the subrogation report generator 145. The subrogationreport generator 145 may generate a report based on the subrogationscore and provide the subrogation report to the subrogation opportunityprocessing system 110. The subrogation opportunity processing system 110may communicate the subrogation report to the client via the network120. In some implementations the subrogation opportunity processingsystem 110 may include one or more client interfaces tailored todifferent users. Such interfaces may include the logic to tailor thesubrogation report based on a particular user.

In some implementations the external database 150 may include a Statuteof Repose database. A statute of repose provides a date upon which alegal action no longer exists. It cuts off an injured person's right ofaction even before it accrues. In the area of product liability, astatute of repose may bar a remedy even before a cause of action arises.For example, a malfunctioning water heater may cause property loss to abasement. The statute of limitations may set a time limit from the timethe property loss occurs, whereas a statute of repose may set a timelimit from the date the water heater was purchased. As a result, if theproperty loss occurs after the statute of repose time limit, then nocause of action may exist. Similarly, statutes of repose may impose anabsolute bar to actions against product manufacturers within a timelimit from the delivery of the product to the consumer. Additionally, astatute of repose deadline is typically stricter than a statute oflimitations deadline, and may therefore be critical in the determinationof a subrogation opportunity for a potential subrogation claim.

In some implementations the subrogation opportunity processing system110 may identify a state for applying the Statute of Repose. The statemay be determined based on existing state laws. In some implementationsthe state may be identified based on a claim identifier such as ageographical identifier. The state may be the state where the lossoccurred and/or the state in which the product originated (e.g., basedpurchased, manufactured, and/or where a construction was substantiallycompleted). The subrogation opportunity processing system 110 may searchthe statute of repose limitations for the identified state, and retrievethe appropriate statute of repose time limit from a Statute of Reposedatabase. The subrogation opportunity processing system 110 may identifyan age of the product (e.g., based on the product attributes), andcompare the statute of repose time limit to the age of the product. Suchcomparison information may be provided to the subrogation scoring system140 which may adjust the subrogation score based on such comparison.

In some implementations determining the subrogation score furtherincludes determining a base score. The base score may be based on afrequency of occurrence of the one or more products in the historicaldatabase, and a record, in the historical database, of one or more of amanufacturer's defect, an installation error, and/or impropermaintenance. As discussed herein, such a record may be stored based onthe results of past subrogation opportunities.

Referring to FIG. 3A, a table illustrates example methods of determiningthe base score. In FIG. 3A, the rows are labeled by product identifiersP₁, . . . , P₁₁ and the columns are labeled as C₁ through C₆. A positionXY will refer to the entry in row X and column Y. The entry “1000” inRow P₁ and Column C₁ represents the number of appearances (“A”) of theproduct identified as P₁ in the historical database. The entry “5” inRow P₁ and Column C₂ represents the number of past subrogationopportunities based on a manufacturer's defect in the product identifiedas P₁. The entry “12” in Row P₁ and Column C₃ represents the number ofpast subrogation opportunities based on an installation error for theproduct identified as P₁. The entry “13” in Row P₁ and Column C₄represents the number of past subrogation opportunities based onimproper maintenance of the product identified as P₁. The entry “20” inRow P₁ and Column C₅ represents the number of past subrogationopportunities based on a percentage of destructive testing of theproduct identified as P₁. The number of past subrogation opportunities(“B”) may be calculated as the sum of the past subrogation opportunitiesbased on a manufacturer's defect, an installation error, an impropermaintenance, and a percentage of destructive testing, of the productidentified as P₁. In our example, the sum B for the product identifiedas P₁ is equal to 5+12+13+20=50. The entry “50/1000” in Row P₁ andColumn C₆ represents the base score determined as a ratio of B/A, withB=50 and A=1000. The entry “5%” in Row P₁ and Column C₇ represents thebase score as a percentage. The remaining entries in the table in FIG.3A may be computed in like manner.

In some implementations the subrogation scoring system 140 may determineone or more additional factors to adjust the subrogation score. In someimplementations the subrogation score may be based on one or more of astatute factor, a new trend factor, and a recall factor.

The new trend factor is indicative of recent occurrences of the productin the subrogation database. For example, the number of occurrences ofthe product data related to a sump pump may not be statisticallysignificant over a period of say, 15 years. However, an observable spikemay be seen when the number of occurrences of the product data islimited to the last six months. Such data may be stored in the newtrends database. In some implementations the scoring system 140 maydetermine if the subrogation score is less than a first threshold,determine a new trend factor, and adjust the subrogation score based ona comparison of the first threshold and the new trend factor.

For example, the new trend factor may be determined by first determiningif the base score for the product is less than a first thresholdpercentage. If the base score is less than a first threshold percentage,then the subrogation scoring system 140 may determine the number ofoccurrences of the product in the new trends database. In someimplementations the new trends database may include product data that isfiltered based on a time stamp data associated with the product, anddetermining that the time stamp data pertains to a predetermined timeinterval. For example, depending on the product, the time interval maybe three months or five years. If the number of occurrences of theproduct in the new trends database exceeds a second threshold number,the new trend factor may be determined to be a multiplier, such as 2. Ifthe number of occurrences of the product in the new trends database isdetermined not to exceed the second threshold number, the new trendfactor may be determined to be 1. In some implementations the multipliermay depend on the predetermined time interval. For example, two timeintervals may be identified. A higher multiplier may be associated withthe more recent time interval, and a lower multiplier may be associatedwith the earlier time interval. Likewise, the multiplier may depend onthe first threshold percentage and/or the second threshold number. Ahigher multiplier may be associated with a higher first thresholdpercentage (resp., second threshold number) and a lower multiplier maybe associated with a lower first threshold percentage (resp., secondthreshold number).

Referring to FIG. 3B, a table illustrates example methods of determiningthe new trend factor. In FIG. 3B, the rows are labeled by productidentifiers P₁, . . . , P₁₁ and the columns are labeled as C₁ throughC₃. A position XY will refer to the entry in row X and column Y. ColumnC₁ indicates a determination as to whether the base score for theindicated product is less than a first threshold percentage (e.g., 40%).The entry “Y” in Row P₁ and Column C₁ indicates that the base score forthe product identified as P₁ is less than 40%. This may be determinedbased on the entry of “5%” in Row P₁ and Column C₇ of the table in FIG.3A that represents the base score for the product identified as P₁ as apercentage. Column C₂ indicates a determination as to whether the numberof entries in a new trends database (e.g., within a shorter timethreshold such as in the last three months) is greater than a secondthreshold number (e.g. 20). The entry “Y” in Row P₁ and Column C₂indicates that the number of entries for the product identified as P₁during the last three months exceeds 20. Accordingly, the entry “2” inRow P₁ and Column C₃ indicates that the new trend factor for the productidentified as P₁ is 2.

The recall factor is indicative of the frequency of recall for theproduct based at least in part on data retrieved from a recall database.In some implementations the recall database may be the CPSC database.The recall factor may be determined by comparing the product identifierswith the product data in the recall database. For example, thesubrogation opportunity processing system 110 may search the CPSCdatabase based on criteria including one or more of a type of product,an item description, and a model. Additionally, the historical databasemay be searched for a product brand, and a product manufacturer. Theresults of the search may be compared with the product identifiers. Ifthe comparison yields a matching of data that exceeds a third thresholdpercentage, then the recall factor may be determined to be a multiplier,such as 2. If the comparison yields a matching of data that does notexceed the third threshold percentage, the new trend factor may bedetermined to be 1. In some implementations the multiplier may depend onthe third threshold percentage. For example, two third thresholdpercentages may be identified. A higher multiplier may be associatedwith the higher third threshold percentage (e.g., a multiplier such as 3associated with a third threshold percentage of 90%), and a lowermultiplier may be associated with the lower third threshold percentage(e.g., a multiplier such as 1.5 associated with a third thresholdpercentage of 70%).

Referring to FIG. 3C, a table illustrates example methods of determiningthe recall factor. In FIG. 3C, the rows are labeled by productidentifiers P₁, . . . , P₁₁ and the columns are labeled as C₁ and C₂. Aposition XY will refer to the entry in row X and column Y. Column C₁indicates a determination as to whether the comparison of the productdata retrieved from the CPSC database and the product identifiers yieldsa matching of data that exceeds a third threshold percentage (e.g.,80%). The entry “N” in Row P₁ and Column C₁ indicates that the matchingof data for the product identified as P₁ is less than 80%. Accordingly,the entry “1” in Row P₁ and Column C₂ indicates that the recall factorfor the product identified as P₁ is 1.

In some implementations the subrogation score may be adjusted based on astatute factor. For example, the subrogation opportunity processingsystem 110 may identify a state for applying a Statute of Repose, andidentify a statutory time limit for the identified state in the Statuteof Repose database. The statute factor is based on comparison of thestatutory time limit and an elapsed time from purchase date of said oneor more products. For example, the scoring system 140 may determine ifage of the one or more products exceeds the statutory time limit,determining the statute factor to be ½ when the age exceeds thestatutory time limit, and determine the statute factor to be 1 when theage does not exceed said statutory time limit. A division factor otherthan ½ may be utilized to adjust the subrogation score.

Referring to FIG. 3D, a table illustrates example methods of determiningthe statute factor. In FIG. 3D, the rows are labeled by productidentifiers P₁, . . . , P₁₁ and the columns are labeled as C₁ and C₂. Aposition XY will refer to the entry in row X and column Y. Column C₁indicates a determination as to whether the age of the product exceedsthe statutory limit as provided by the statute of repose for therelevant state. The entry “N” in Row P₁ and Column C₁ indicates that theage of the product identified as P₁ does not exceed the statutory limit.Accordingly, the entry “1” in Row P₁ and Column C₂ indicates that thestatute factor for the product identified as P₁ is 1. Likewise, theentry “Y” in Row P₂ and Column C₁ indicates that the age of the productidentified as P₂ exceeds the statutory limit. Accordingly, the entry “A”in Row P₂ and Column C₂ indicates that the statute factor for theproduct identified as P₂ is ½.

In some implementations the subrogation score may be adjusted based onone or more of the statute factor, the new trend factor, and the recallfactor. In some implementations the adjustment may be based onmultiplying the subrogation score by one or more of the statute factor,the new trend factor, and the recall factor. In some implementations thesubrogation score may be scaled logarithmically. The logarithmic scalingmay be utilized, for example, to determine a suitable distribution forpast determinations of subrogation scores for products in the historicaldatabase. Such a distribution and/or scaling may be periodically revisedto reflect new entries in the historical database.

Referring to FIG. 3E, a table illustrates example methods of determiningthe subrogation score. In FIG. 3E, the columns are labeled by productidentifiers P₁, . . . , P₁₁ and the rows are labeled as R₁ through R₅. Aposition XY will refer to the entry in row X and column Y. Column P₁represents the numerical values associated with the product identifiedas P₁. For example, the entry “0.05” in Row R₁ and Column P₁ representsthe base score for the product identified as P₁ as illustrated in theentry of “0.05” in Row P₁ and Column C₆ of the table in FIG. 3A,expressed as a decimal number. The entry “1” in Row R₂ and Column P₁represents the recall factor for the product identified as P₁ asillustrated in the entry of “1” in Row P₁ and Column C₂ of the table inFIG. 3C. The entry “2” in Row R₃ and Column P₁ represents the new trendsfactor for the product identified as P₁ as illustrated in the entry of“2” in Row P₁ and Column C₃ of the table in FIG. 3B. The entry “1” inRow R₄ and Column P₁ represents the statute factor for the productidentified as P₁ as illustrated in the entry of “1” in Row P₁ and ColumnC₂ of the table in FIG. 3D. The product of the entries in rows R₂through R₅ of Column P₁ of FIG. 3E (e.g., 5×1×2×1=0.1) is illustrated inthe entry in Row R₅ and Column P₁. Accordingly, in some implementations,the subrogation scoring system 140 may associate a subrogation score of0.1 with the product identified as P₁. In some implementations theentries in Row R₅ may be additionally scaled. Scaling may be achieved,for example, by taking an appropriate logarithm of the subrogationscores.

In some implementations a graded scoring scale may be identified. Such agraded scoring scale may be based, for example, on a record ofhistorical subrogation scores. In some implementations a distributionmay be determined based on the record of historical subrogation scores.Such a distribution may facilitate the division of the entire range ofhistorical subrogation scores into a graded scoring scale.

Referring to FIG. 3F, a graph illustrates an example method of providinga subrogation score. In some implementations a graded scoring scale maybe determined. The range of values from 0 through 1.6 may be groupedinto smaller ranges, such as 0 to 0.5, 0.6 to 0.8, 0.9 to 1.1, 1.2 to1.4, and 1.5 or higher. For example, subrogation scores in the rangefrom 0 to 0.5 may be indicative of a “low” subrogation opportunity for apotential subrogation claim for products; subrogation scores in therange from 0.6 to 0.8 may be indicative of a “below average” subrogationopportunity for a potential subrogation claim for products; subrogationscores in the range from 0.9 to 1.1 may be indicative of an “average”subrogation opportunity for a potential subrogation claim for products;subrogation scores in the range from 1.2 to 1.4 may be indicative of an“above average” subrogation opportunity for a potential subrogationclaim for products; and subrogation scores that are 1.5 or higher may beindicative of a “high” subrogation opportunity for a potentialsubrogation claim for products.

In some implementations the subrogation scoring system 140 may providethe subrogation score to the subrogation opportunity processing system110. In some implementations the subrogation score may be provided tothe user by the subrogation opportunity processing system 110. In someimplementations the subrogation report generator 145 may generate asubrogation report based on the subrogation score, and optionallyinclude the subrogation score in the subrogation report.

In some implementations the subrogation scoring system 140 may determinea rating based on the subrogation score. For example, the subrogationscore may indicate that a first product is associated with a “high”rating whereas a second product is associated with an “average” ratingbased on a subrogation score more indicative of the subrogationopportunity for a potential subrogation claim associated with the firstproduct, and a subrogation score less indicative of the subrogationopportunity for a potential subrogation claim associated with the secondproduct. In some implementations the subrogation score and/orsubrogation report may be annotated with ratings that are indicative ofa success rate of past subrogation claims.

In some implementations the subrogation score and/or the subrogationreport may be associated with the one or more product identifiers andstored in a database such as the subrogation database 130. Theassociation may be stored with additional timestamp data indicating thedate of loss. The subrogation database may be indexed based at least inpart on such stored associations.

Referring to FIGS. 4A-4E, example graphical user interfaces forproviding a subrogation score are illustrated. The subrogation scoresmay be provided to the user via the mobile application, such asapplication 165 running on the user's mobile device, such as clientdevice 160. Each of FIGS. 4A-4E illustrate a graphical user interface400 on a mobile application. Each interface illustrated herein may beequipped with a first selectable option 430 with an option to “Proceed”.Selection of the option to “Proceed” may be an indication that the userwishes to proceed with submission of a product for component testing.Each interface illustrated herein may be additionally equipped with asecond selectable option 440 with an option to “Cancel”. Selection ofthe option to “Cancel” may be an indication that the user does not wishto proceed with submission of a product for component testing.

FIG. 4A illustrates one representation of a subrogation score for aproduct with a high subrogation score indicative of a high subrogationopportunity for a potential subrogation claim. The subrogation score maybe provided with a rating of “High” 420 a. In some implementations thesubrogation score may also be illustrated using the graded scale asdiscussed with reference to FIG. 3F. For example, a graphicalrepresentation of the high scoring range of 1.5 or higher (withreference to FIG. 3F) may be represented by a bar graph 410 a.

FIG. 4B illustrates one representation of a subrogation score for aproduct with an above average subrogation score indicative of an aboveaverage subrogation opportunity for a potential subrogation claim. Thesubrogation score may be provided with a rating of “Above Average” 420b. In some implementations the subrogation score may also be illustratedusing the graded scale as discussed with reference to FIG. 3F. Forexample, a graphical representation of the above average scoring rangeof 1.2 to 1.4 (with reference to FIG. 3F) may be represented by a bargraph 410 b.

FIG. 4C illustrates one representation of a subrogation score for aproduct with an average subrogation score indicative of an averagesubrogation opportunity for a potential subrogation claim. Thesubrogation score may be provided with a rating of “Average” 420 c. Insome implementations the subrogation score may also be illustrated usingthe graded scale as discussed with reference to FIG. 3F. For example, agraphical representation of the average range of 0.9 to 1.1 (withreference to FIG. 3F) may be represented by a bar graph 410 c.

FIG. 4D illustrates one representation of a subrogation score for aproduct with a below average subrogation score indicative of a belowaverage subrogation opportunity for a potential subrogation claim. Thesubrogation score may be provided with a rating of “Below Average” 420d. In some implementations the subrogation score may also be illustratedusing the graded scale as discussed with reference to FIG. 3F. Forexample, a graphical representation of the below average scoring rangeof 0.6 to 0.8 (with reference to FIG. 3F) may be represented by a bargraph 410 d.

FIG. 4E illustrates one representation of a subrogation score for aproduct with a low subrogation score indicative of a low subrogationopportunity for a potential subrogation claim. The subrogation score maybe provided with a rating of “Low” 420 e. In some implementations thesubrogation score may also be illustrated using the graded scale asdiscussed with reference to FIG. 3F. For example, a graphicalrepresentation of the low scoring range of 0 to 0.5 (with reference toFIG. 3F) may be represented by a bar graph 410 e.

In some implementations where a number and/or percentage is utilized todetermine a rating and/or a subrogation score, the subrogationopportunity processing system 110 and/or subrogation report generator145 may identify a threshold number and/or percentage to determine ifthe rating and/or a subrogation score satisfy such threshold. In someimplementations the threshold may be a fixed threshold. In someimplementations the threshold may be based on the one or more products,product identifiers, product data, present or past subrogation claims,results of present or past component testing, and so forth. For example,statistical analysis may be performed on present and past subrogationclaims to determine a statistically significant threshold.

Many other configurations are possible having more or fewer componentsthan the environment shown in FIG. 1. For example, in some environmentsthe subrogation report generator 145 and the subrogation scoring system140 may be independent components of environment 100. In someenvironments, the subrogation database 130 may further include ahistorical database and a new trends database. In some environments, oneor more of the historical database and the new trends database may beindependent components of the system.

Referring to FIG. 5, a flow chart illustrates an example process fordetermining a subrogation score for one or more products implemented onone or more servers. For convenience, the method 500-540 will bedescribed with respect to a system that performs at least parts of themethod. Other implementations may perform the steps in a differentorder, omit certain steps, and/or perform different and/or additionalsteps than those illustrated in FIG. 5. For convenience, aspects of FIG.5 will be described with reference to a system of one or more computersthat perform the process. The system may include, for example, one ormore components of FIG. 1.

At step 500, one or more products identifiers may be received. The oneor more products identifiers may include one or more product identifiersidentifying one or more products. For example, an insurance adjuster mayrespond to an insurance claim and arrive to find water in the basement,and may identify property loss as a result of the water. The insuranceadjuster may identify one or more products that may be likely to havecaused the property loss in the basement, such as a faulty water heater,a dishwasher, a clothes washer, and sump pump. The insurance adjustermay then gather data related to the one or more products. The data maybe gathered by taking photographs, scanning product barcodes, and/or bymanually entering data (e.g., product serial number, model number, UPC)into data fields provided in a mobile application, such as application165. The received data may be provided to the subrogation opportunityprocessing system 110.

At step 510, at least one database may be searched for product datarelated to the one or more product identifiers. For example, thesubrogation opportunity processing system 110 may search a historicaldatabase for historical data related to component testing related to theone or more product barcodes. Also, for example, the subrogationopportunity processing system 110 may identify a state relevant toapplying the Statute of Repose (e.g., based on a geographicalidentifier) and search the Statute of Repose limitations for theidentified state. As another example, the subrogation opportunityprocessing system 110 may search external product databases 150 such asdatabases maintained by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (“CPSC”),Consumer Federation of America (“CFA”), and National Highway SafetyAdministration (“NHSA”) for product recall data.

At step 520, product data may be retrieved from the at least onedatabase. For example, product data may be retrieved from a historicaldatabase including results of past and present component testing. Insome implementations the subrogation opportunity processing system 110may identify trends in product defects based on component testing dataand optionally store information related to such trends in a new trendsdatabase. For example, component testing may indicate that water heatersfrom a particular manufacturer include a component that fails within thefirst five years of use, but rarely within the first two years of use.Such data may not be available from an external product database 150.The subrogation opportunity processing system 110 may provide suchinformation to the subrogation scoring system 140 which may accordinglyassign a subrogation score more indicative of the subrogationopportunity for a potential subrogation claim with a water heater thathas been in use for four years than with a water heater that is in itsfirst year of use. As another example, the frequency of product datarelated to a sump pump may not be statistically significant over aperiod of say, 15 years. However, an observable spike may be seen whenthe frequency of product data is limited to the last six months. Suchdata may be stored in the new trends database. In some implementationsthe new trends database may be included in the subrogation database 130.

At step 530, a subrogation score for the one or more productsidentifiers may be determined based on the retrieved product data. Thesubrogation score may be indicative of subrogation opportunity for apotential subrogation claim. In some implementations the subrogationscore may be determined by the subrogation scoring system 140. In someimplementations the subrogation scoring system 140 may include asubrogation report generator 145. The subrogation score may be based onproduct data retrieved from at least one database, including a Statuteof Repose database, a Consumer Product Safety database, a historicaldatabase and a new trends database.

At step 540, the subrogation score may be provided to the user. Thesubrogation score may be provided, for instance, to an insurancecarrier. The subrogation score may provide an indication to theinsurance carrier as to whether to pursue a subrogation claim relativeto the one or more products. In some implementations the subrogationscore may be provided via a graphical user interface in the mobileapplication running on the user's mobile device.

Referring to FIG. 6, a flow chart illustrates an example process fordetermining a subrogation score for one or more products implemented ona mobile application. For convenience, the method 600-640 will bedescribed with respect to a system that performs at least parts of themethod. Other implementations may perform the steps in a differentorder, omit certain steps, and/or perform different and/or additionalsteps than those illustrated in FIG. 6. For convenience, aspects of FIG.6 will be described with reference to a system of one or more computersthat perform the process. The system may include, for example, one ormore components of FIG. 1.

At step 600, one or more products identifiers may be identified via amobile device. A mobile application configured to run on the mobiledevice may be utilized to identify the one or more product identifiers.The one or more products identifiers may identify one or more products.For example, an insurance adjuster may respond to an insurance claim andarrive to find water in the basement, and may identify property loss asa result of the water. The insurance adjuster may identify one or moreproducts that may be likely to have caused the property loss in thebasement, such as a faulty water heater, a dishwasher, a clothes washer,and sump pump. The insurance adjuster may then gather data related tothe one or more products. The data may be gathered by takingphotographs, scanning product barcodes, and/or by manually entering data(e.g., product serial number, model number, UPC) into data fieldsprovided in a mobile application, such as application 165. Step 600 mayhave one or more aspects in common with step 500 of FIG. 5.

At step 610, the one or more product identifiers may provided to acentral server. For example, the product identifier for a productbarcode may be provided to the subrogation opportunity processing system110.

At step 620, the mobile application running on the mobile device mayprompt the central server to search at least one database for productdata related to the one or more product identifiers. In someimplementations the receipt of the one or more product identifiers bythe central server may be the prompt to the central server to search theat least one database. For example, the subrogation opportunityprocessing system 110 may receive one or more product identifiers andsearch the historical database for historical data related to componenttesting related to the one or more product barcodes. Also, for example,the subrogation opportunity processing system 110 may identify a statewhere the loss occurred (e.g., based on a geographical identifier) andsearch the statute of repose limitations for the identified state. Asanother example, the subrogation opportunity processing system 110 maysearch external product databases 150 such as databases maintained bythe Consumer Product Safety Commission (“CPSC”), Consumer Federation ofAmerica (“CFA”), and National Highway Safety Administration (“NHSA”) forproduct recall data. Step 620 may have one or more aspects in commonwith step 510 of FIG. 5.

At step 630, a subrogation score for the one or more products isreceived from the central server. The subrogation score may beindicative of subrogation opportunity for a potential subrogation claimrelative to the one or more products. In some implementations thesubrogation score may be determined by the subrogation scoring system140. In some implementations the subrogation scoring system 140 mayinclude a subrogation report generator 145. The subrogation score may bebased on product data retrieved from at least one database, including aStatute of Repose database, a Consumer Product Safety database, ahistorical database and a new trends database. Step 630 may have one ormore aspects in common with step 530 of FIG. 5.

At step 640, the subrogation score may be displayed via the mobiledevice. The subrogation score may be provided via one or more userinterfaces on the mobile device, and the mobile application may beconfigured to interact with such user interfaces. The one or more userinterfaces may include a graphical user interface. The subrogation scoremay be provided, for instance, to an insurance carrier. The subrogationscore may provide an indication to the insurance carrier as to whetherto pursue a subrogation claim relative to the one or more products.

Referring to FIG. 7, flow diagram illustrates an example process forsubmitting a subrogation project. For convenience, the method 700-770will be described with respect to a system that performs at least partsof the method. Other implementations may perform the steps in adifferent order, omit certain steps, and/or perform different and/oradditional steps than those illustrated in FIG. 7. For convenience,aspects of FIG. 7 will be described with reference to a system of one ormore computers that perform the process. The system may include, forexample, one or more components of FIG. 1.

At step 700, a subrogation score and/or a subrogation report is providedto a user. The subrogation score and/or the subrogation report mayinclude a selectable option to submit the one or more productsidentifiers for component testing.

At step 710, the user is provided with a selectable option as to whetherit wants to submit a project as a subrogation project. The user maydecide, based at least in part on the subrogation score, to not pursue asubrogation project. For example, if the one or more products related tothe potential subrogation claim are associated with a subrogation scoreindicative of a potentially “low” indication of subrogation opportunityfor a potential subrogation claim, then the user may decide not tosubmit the project as a subrogation project. The subrogation opportunityprocessing system 110 may receive, via the application on the computingdevice of the user, an affirmative user selection of the selectableoption to not submit the one or more products identifiers for componenttesting. Based on such a decision by the user, at step 720 a, the one ormore products identifiers may be associated with the subrogation reportand stored in the subrogation database.

On the other hand, the user may decide, based at least in part on thesubrogation report, to pursue a subrogation project related to theproduct. For example, if the one or more products related to thepotential subrogation claim are associated with a subrogation scoreindicative of a potentially “high” indication of subrogation opportunityfor a potential subrogation claim, then the user may decide to submitthe project as a subrogation project. The subrogation opportunityprocessing system 110 may receive, via the application on the computingdevice of the user, an affirmative user selection of the selectableoption to submit the one or more products identifiers for componenttesting. Based on such a decision by the insurance carrier, at step 720b, the system may prompt the user to enter claim information, includinginformation related to the insured party, the claim number and the dateof loss.

At step 730, the user may be provided with a choice as to whether itwants assistance in shipping the product for component testing. The usermay decide to ship the product to a component testing laboratory. Basedon such a decision by the user, at step 740 a, the system may providethe user with information related to packaging and shipment of theproduct so as to preserve the evidence. In some implementations the usermay be prompted to take photographs of the product, and/or enterinformation related to the product. The user may also be provided withthe shipment address.

On the other hand, the user may decide to utilize the processesdisclosed herein to ship the product for component testing. Based onsuch a decision by the user, at step 740 b, the system prompts the userto enter the origin and destination information for shipping purposes.In some implementations, at least the destination information may beprovided as a selectable menu of options based on the one or moresubrogation project types and/or products. For example, if the targetproduct is a water heater, it may be shipped to a component testinglaboratory that has expertise in analyzing water heaters. On the otherhand, if the target product is an air conditioning unit, it may beshipped to a component testing laboratory that has expertise inanalyzing air conditioning units. The user may be prompted to providelocation information for the product. In some implementations suchlocation information may be identified using geolocation data such asthat received via GPS, cell tower, and/or a Wi-Fi network, and the usermay be provided with the identified location, and additionally promptedto verify the identified location.

From either of the two steps 740 a and 740 b, the process flows to step750 where a confirmation number is generated and provided to the user.Additionally, evidence preservation recommendations may be made to theuser so that the product may be shipped for component testing within ashort window of opportunity so as not to lose potential evidence. Theevidence preservation recommendations may include information onpackaging the product and possibly extracting and/or removing one ormore components from the product before shipping the product.

At step 760, evidence characteristics may be captured. For example, aphotograph of the evidence may be taken. The photograph may be furtherannotated with the confirmation number received in step 750.

At step 770, the evidence characteristics may be provided to thesubrogation opportunity processing system 110, and/or stored in thesubrogation database 130.

FIG. 8 is a block diagram of an example computer system 800 fordetermining a subrogation opportunity for a potential subrogation claimrelative to one or more products. Computer system 800 may include one ormore processors 835 which may communicate with a number of peripheraldevices via bus subsystem 815. Peripheral devices may include, forexample, a memory system 820 and a file system 825, user interface inputdevices 810, user interface output devices 805, and a network interfacesystem 830. The input and output devices allow user interaction withcomputer system 800. Network interface system 830 provides an interfaceto outside networks and may be coupled to corresponding interfacedevices in other computer systems.

User interface input devices 810 may include devices such as a keyboard,a mouse, and a touchscreen. User interface input devices 810 may alsoinclude audio input devices, and/or other types of input devicesincluding mobile devices such as client device 160. User interfaceoutput devices 805 may include devices such as a display (e.g., on acomputing device 160), a printer, and a fax machine. User input devices810 may also include, for example, a scanning device for digitallyscanning a product barcode. Also, for example, user input devices 810may include a camera for taking photographs.

Memory system 820 may include a number of conventional memory systemsincluding a main random access memory (RAM) for storage of instructionsand data during program execution and a read only memory (ROM) in whichfixed instructions are stored. File system 825 may provide persistentstorage for program and data files, and may include a hard disk drive,and/or an optical drive. Other conventional file storage systems may beused. The memory system 820 and the file system 825 may include thelogic to determine the subrogation score, and/or generate a subrogationreport. Also, for example, the memory system 820 and the file system 825may include the logic to implement the processes disclosed in steps500-540, steps 600-640, and/or steps 700-770. These software modules aregenerally executed by processor 835 alone or in combination with otherprocessors.

Bus subsystem 815 provides a mechanism for letting the variouscomponents and subsystems of computer system 800 communicate with eachother as intended.

Computer system 800 may be of varying types including a workstation,server, or any other data processing system or computing device,including a mobile device. The description of computer system 800depicted in FIG. 8 is intended only as a specific example for purposesof illustrating some implementations, and represents one of severalpossible configurations.

While there has been described and illustrated particularimplementations of a system and method for determining subrogationopportunity for a potential subrogation claim, it will be apparent tothose skilled in the art that variations and modifications may bepossible without deviating from the broad spirit and principle of thepresent invention, which shall be limited solely by the scope of theclaims appended hereto.

It should also be understood that, unless clearly indicated to thecontrary, in any methods claimed herein that include more than one stepor act, the order of the steps or acts of the method is not necessarilylimited to the order in which the steps or acts of the method arerecited.

In the claims, as well as in the specification above, all transitionalphrases such as “comprising,” “including,” “carrying,” “having,”“containing,” “involving,” “holding,” “composed of,” and the like are tobe understood to be open-ended, i.e., to mean including but not limitedto. Only the transitional phrases “consisting of” and “consistingessentially of” shall be closed or semi-closed transitional phrases,respectively, as set forth in the United States Patent Office Manual ofPatent Examining Procedures, Section 2111.03.

It is understood that these examples are intended in an illustrativerather than in a limiting sense. Computer-assisted processing isimplicated in the described embodiments. It is contemplated thatmodifications and combinations will readily occur, which modificationsand combinations will be within the scope of the following claims.

What is claimed is:
 1. A computer implemented method comprising:receiving, via an application on a computing device of a user, one ormore product identifiers, the one or more product identifiersidentifying one or more products likely to have contributed to a loss;searching at least one database for product data related to said one ormore product identifiers, said at least one database including one ormore of a Statute of Repose database, a Consumer Product Safetydatabase, a historical database and a new trends database; retrieving,via one or more servers, said product data from said at least onedatabase; determining, based on said retrieved product data, asubrogation score for each of said one or more products, saidsubrogation score indicative of subrogation opportunity for a potentialsubrogation claim relative to said one or more products; providing saidsubrogation score to said user; determining that at least one of the oneor more products are to be submitted for component testing; andproviding evidence preservation recommendations related to the at leastone of the one or more products for the component testing to said user.2. The method of claim 1, wherein said product identifiers include atleast one product attribute for each of said one or more products. 3.The method of claim 1, further comprising identifying a claimidentifier, said claim identifier identifying said potential subrogationclaim related to said loss.
 4. The method of claim 1, further comprisingproviding, via the application on the computing device of the user, aselectable option to submit said one or more products for componenttesting.
 5. The method of claim 4, wherein determining that the at leastone of the one or more products are to be submitted for componenttesting comprises receiving, via the application on the computing deviceof the user, an affirmative user selection of the selectable option tosubmit said one or more products for component testing.
 6. The method ofclaim 5, further comprising responding to the affirmative user selectionof the selectable option to submit by prompting the user to enter one ormore claim identifiers.
 7. The method of claim 6, further comprisinggenerating a confirmation number for the one or more products forcomponent testing.
 8. The method of claim 7, further comprisingresponding to the affirmative user selection by providing shippinginformation to the user to ship the one or more products for thecomponent testing.
 9. The method of claim 6, further comprisingreceiving, via the application on the computing device of the user, anaffirmative user selection of the selectable option to not submit saidone or more products for component testing.
 10. The method of claim 1,wherein determining said subrogation score includes generating asubrogation report for each of said one or more products based on saidsubrogation score.
 11. The method of claim 1, further comprisingassociating said subrogation score with each of said one or more productidentifiers in a subrogation database.
 12. The method of claim 1,further comprising: comparing said subrogation score to a threshold;determining, based on said comparison of subrogation score to saidthreshold, a new trend factor, the new trend factor indicative ofoccurrences of said one or more products in the at least one databasewithin a predetermined time interval; and adjusting the subrogationscore based on the new trend factor.
 13. The method of claim 1, whereinthe at least one database includes a Statute of Repose database, andfurther comprising: identifying a state for applying said Statute ofRepose; identifying a statutory time limit for said state in saidStatute of Repose database; and adjusting the subrogation score based oncomparison of said statutory time limit and an elapsed time frompurchase date of said one or more products.
 14. The method of claim 3,wherein said claim identifier includes one or more of: an insured partyidentifier, the insured party identifier identifying a beneficiary ofthe insurance claim, a date identifier, the date identifier identifyingthe date said loss occurred, and a geographical identifier, thegeographical identifier identifying a physical location where said lossoccurred.
 15. The method of claim 1, wherein said retrieved product dataincludes one or more of product recall information, a manufacturingdefect information, and a product warning.
 16. The method of claim 1,wherein said one or more products include one or more of roofingmaterial, an appliance, electrical components, and plumbing components.17. The method of claim 1, wherein said one or more product identifiersincludes one or more of a product barcode, serial number, and UPC code.18. The method of claim 2, wherein said at least one product attributeincludes one or more of a make, model, year of manufacture, year ofpurchase, age, photograph, video recording, audio recording, and productdescription related to said one or more products.
 19. A method forgenerating a subrogation report implemented on a mobile device,comprising: identifying, via a user interface on the mobile device, oneor more product identifiers, the one or more product identifiersidentifying one or more products likely to have contributed to a loss;providing, by the mobile device via a network interface of the mobiledevice, said one or more product identifiers to a central server toprompt said central server to search at least one database for productdata related to said one or more products, said at least one databaseincluding one or more of a Statute of Repose database, a ConsumerProduct Safety database, a historical database and a new trendsdatabase; receiving, by the mobile device from said central server viasaid network interface, a subrogation score based on said one or moreproducts identifiers, said subrogation score indicative of subrogationopportunity for a potential subrogation claim relative to said one ormore products; displaying, via the user interface, evidence preservationrecommendations related to the at least one of the one or more productsfor the component testing to said user and said subrogation score.
 20. Anon-transitory computer readable storage medium storing computerinstructions executable by a processor to perform a method comprising:receiving, via an application on a computing device of a user, one ormore product identifiers, the one or more product identifiersidentifying one or more products likely to have contributed to a loss;searching at least one database for product data related to said one ormore product identifiers; retrieving, via one or more servers, saidproduct data from said at least one database; determining, based on saidretrieved product data, a subrogation score for each of said one or moreproducts, said subrogation score indicative of subrogation opportunityfor a potential subrogation claim relative to said one or more products;comparing said subrogation score to a threshold; determining, based onsaid comparison of subrogation score to said threshold, a new trendfactor, the new trend factor indicative of occurrences of said one ormore products in the at least one database within a predetermined timeinterval; adjusting the subrogation score based on the new trend factor;and providing said subrogation score to said user.